[jijijijij]

I believe the restriction on personal replication of patented designs is a US thing (only?). At least in Germany, you are legally allowed to make patented things for yourself or science to some capacity. The whole point of a patent is encouraging progress through disclosure of knowledge.

The US restriction is quite mad, if you think about it. Freedom my ass.

[bandrami]

> The whole point of a patent is encouraging progress through disclosure of knowledge.

Well, in terms of its design, the patent system was designed to reward what we now call theft of IP, by granting someone exclusive use of a technology that they would bring in from another country. Greenfield invention was an afterthought and some of the problems we face stem from that disconnect.

[jijijijij]

Design by whom? The origin of patent law is older than most nations and constitutions. There have been various variations, reiterations and stated intentions. There is also no such thing as a natural intellectual property and the very legal concept is based on ideas like patent law. And of course, laws only apply to the people governed by them. Bad premises aside, back then, ripping off other peoples was a costly endeavor akin to research investment. And given the importance of the emerging patent system in the industrial revolution, I think your claims are a bit far fetched.

[V__]

You correct, you are allowed to "break" patent law in Germany, if the use is private and non-commercial. This does not encompass schools and science though.

[jijijijij]

Research is permitted, if the protected invention is commercially available, as far as I know. E.g. medical research. I believe, this means use for research cannot be restricted once commercially available. I am not sure, if it's limited to medicine in Germany. The US has similar exceptions for medical research AFAIK.

Sadly there is indeed no blanket permission for public research and education in Germany, either. There is little point mentioning it, but HN rate-limited my account, so I couldn't edit or comment to clarify in time.

I am not advocating for the German patent system, I just think the US is particularly ridiculous prohibiting personal reproduction and use. Like, you got a lathe, lab, computer or 3D printer and are literally prohibited to use it as you please, not allowed create certain mechanisms, substances, shapes and functions, for your own use, or even survival, without (possibly) harming anyone else.

[Aurornis]

The legalese about not making a patented item for personal use is basically a technicality. From what I recall I think it might be limited more to process than physical devices, too.

No individuals gets prosecuted for it. The companies would spend more on lawyers than they could possibly collect.

[adolph]

> At least in Germany, you are legally allowed to make patented things for yourself or science to some capacity.

Yeah, it has always amazed me that Ruf could market their own versions of the 911 without there being a design patent legal problem.

[dessimus]

I'm not familiar with Ruf beyond their inclusion in the Gran Turismo series, but are they actually distinct replicas of 911s, or are they purchased 911s (or sub-assemblies) that are have aftermarket parts swapped, like Shelby-editions of Ford vehicles? Because if its the latter, then it's still a Porsche 911, just with Ruf branded parts attached.

[bbor]

  The whole point of a patent is encouraging progress through disclosure of knowledge.

Is it, though? It seems like the purpose of a patent is pretty direct: make money for people(/corporations...) who invent things.

I guess you could argue that inventors would hide their designs without patents, but that's not how any industry I'm familiar with works; if they thought that obscurity was an option, they'd stick with it and just label it a trade secret!

[bfivyvysj]

Yes, that is the purpose. It incentives R&D by providing a sanctioned monopoly on the result. The trade in return is that the public domain gets access to the trade secret after enough time has passed to provide the inventor with reward for their investment risk.

The problem is the time has been repeatedly extended across the world to the point that society gets very little from this arrangement.

At this point we're better off removing the concept of IP entirely.

[PunchyHamster]

The original idea was "we protect the invention so the companies have guarantee that their investment in the innovation pays off".

The assumption was the invention was something rare and hard, not something you could re-recrate from scratch in a week or evening (in case of software invention) or that patent is only filled to cast a wide net to block the competition

[jijijijij]

> It offers a bargain between society and inventor:for a limited period of exclusivity, the inventor agrees to make the invention public rather than to keep it secret.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent

In today's world patents are mostly dysfunctional, or straight malignant. They tend to slow, discourage progress and selectively aid large corporation who can afford the legal warfare. They have become also less informative, more vague, so really the bargain with the collective is off now.

[thfuran]

Modern patent law came from 15th century Venice, where in the 13th century the glassmaker’s guild took trade secrecy so seriously that they decided that any glassworker who left the city without permission was to be hunted down and killed if imprisoning their family didn’t convince them to return.

[0-_-0]

Obscurity makes no sense on a world with patents.

[close04]

Obscurity is otherwise known as "trade secret". It's used when the company really doesn't want to give anyone even a hint of what and how it's doing things, maybe going as far as assuming nobody can figure out the process independently either, so filing for a patent is out of the question. The Coca Cola formulation is a famous example.

[teaearlgraycold]

Unless you don’t think anyone will ever figure out how you do something.

[teaearlgraycold]

Uh no you can definitely make a replica of a patented device at home in the US. You can not sell it. I don’t think you could distribute the files of a reverse engineered Noctua fan online either.

[jijijijij]

Correct me, if I am wrong:

> Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271

There seems to be no exception for personal use. A quick search shows apparent patent lawyers claiming personal use/manufacturing not to be permitted, either (I won't link it here, since it may or may not be SEO/AI spam). If I understand correctly, this is also evident by legal precedent regarding rights to repair (valid defense).

De facto it may be usually without consequences, since patent violations need to be called out by the offended party. If the patent holder is oblivious, nothing will happen. And since personal reproduction is likely not causing financial damages, you are likely only gonna be told to stop, I presume.

But it's still infringement and consequently you may get away with reproduction, but cannot talk about it.

Honestly, I couldn't believe it at first either. It seems wildly overstepping into personal freedom what you are allowed to make with your own hands for yourself. Especially since patents are now granted liberally for stuff borderline trivial, or not actually innovative, lacking thorough research.

[teaearlgraycold]

Hmm, I recall asking my father this but he’s a criminal lawyer not a patent lawyer.

[userbinator]

I don’t think you could distribute the files of a reverse engineered Noctua fan online either.

That is also legal, and if anything you'd own the copyright to those files.